Commits
Mel Gorman committed 7332dec055f
sched/fair: Only immediately migrate tasks due to interrupts if prev and target CPUs share cache
If waking from an idle CPU due to an interrupt then it's possible that
the waker task will be pulled to wake on the current CPU. Unfortunately,
depending on the type of interrupt and IRQ configuration, there may not
be a strong relationship between the CPU an interrupt was delivered on
and the CPU a task was running on. For example, the interrupts could all
be delivered to CPUs on one particular node due to the machine topology
or IRQ affinity configuration. Another example is an interrupt for an IO
completion which can be delivered to any CPU where there is no guarantee
the data is either cache hot or even local.
This patch was motivated by the observation that an IO workload was
being pulled cross-node on a frequent basis when IO completed. From a
wakeup latency perspective, it's still useful to know that an idle CPU is
immediately available for use but lets only consider an automatic migration
if the CPUs share cache to limit damage due to NUMA migrations. Migrations
may still occur if wake_affine_weight determines it's appropriate.
These are the throughput results for dbench running on ext4 comparing
4.15-rc3 and this patch on a 2-socket machine where interrupts due to IO
completions can happen on any CPU.
4.15.0-rc3 4.15.0-rc3
vanilla lessmigrate
Hmean 1 854.64 ( 0.00%) 865.01 ( 1.21%)
Hmean 2 1229.60 ( 0.00%) 1274.44 ( 3.65%)
Hmean 4 1591.81 ( 0.00%) 1628.08 ( 2.28%)
Hmean 8 1845.04 ( 0.00%) 1831.80 ( -0.72%)
Hmean 16 2038.61 ( 0.00%) 2091.44 ( 2.59%)
Hmean 32 2327.19 ( 0.00%) 2430.29 ( 4.43%)
Hmean 64 2570.61 ( 0.00%) 2568.54 ( -0.08%)
Hmean 128 2481.89 ( 0.00%) 2499.28 ( 0.70%)
Stddev 1 14.31 ( 0.00%) 5.35 ( 62.65%)
Stddev 2 21.29 ( 0.00%) 11.09 ( 47.92%)
Stddev 4 7.22 ( 0.00%) 6.80 ( 5.92%)
Stddev 8 26.70 ( 0.00%) 9.41 ( 64.76%)
Stddev 16 22.40 ( 0.00%) 20.01 ( 10.70%)
Stddev 32 45.13 ( 0.00%) 44.74 ( 0.85%)
Stddev 64 93.10 ( 0.00%) 93.18 ( -0.09%)
Stddev 128 184.28 ( 0.00%) 177.85 ( 3.49%)
Note the small increase in throughput for low thread counts but also
note that the standard deviation for each sample during the test run is
lower. The throughput figures for dbench can be misleading so the benchmark
is actually modified to time the latency of the processing of one load
file with many samples taken. The difference in latency is
4.15.0-rc3 4.15.0-rc3
vanilla lessmigrate
Amean 1 21.71 ( 0.00%) 21.47 ( 1.08%)
Amean 2 30.89 ( 0.00%) 29.58 ( 4.26%)
Amean 4 47.54 ( 0.00%) 46.61 ( 1.97%)
Amean 8 82.71 ( 0.00%) 82.81 ( -0.12%)
Amean 16 149.45 ( 0.00%) 145.01 ( 2.97%)
Amean 32 265.49 ( 0.00%) 248.43 ( 6.42%)
Amean 64 463.23 ( 0.00%) 463.55 ( -0.07%)
Amean 128 933.97 ( 0.00%) 935.50 ( -0.16%)
Stddev 1 1.58 ( 0.00%) 1.54 ( 2.26%)
Stddev 2 2.84 ( 0.00%) 2.95 ( -4.15%)
Stddev 4 6.78 ( 0.00%) 6.85 ( -0.99%)
Stddev 8 16.85 ( 0.00%) 16.37 ( 2.85%)
Stddev 16 41.59 ( 0.00%) 41.04 ( 1.32%)
Stddev 32 111.05 ( 0.00%) 105.11 ( 5.35%)
Stddev 64 285.94 ( 0.00%) 288.01 ( -0.72%)
Stddev 128 803.39 ( 0.00%) 809.73 ( -0.79%)
It's a small improvement which is not surprising given that migrations that
migrate to a different node as not that common. However, it is noticeable
in the CPU migration statistics which are reduced by 24%.
There was a query for v1 of this patch about NAS so here are the results
for C-class using MPI for parallelisation on the same machine
nas-mpi
4.15.0-rc3 4.15.0-rc3
vanilla noirq
Time cg.C 24.25 ( 0.00%) 23.17 ( 4.45%)
Time ep.C 8.22 ( 0.00%) 8.29 ( -0.85%)
Time ft.C 22.67 ( 0.00%) 20.34 ( 10.28%)
Time is.C 1.42 ( 0.00%) 1.47 ( -3.52%)
Time lu.C 55.62 ( 0.00%) 54.81 ( 1.46%)
Time mg.C 7.93 ( 0.00%) 7.91 ( 0.25%)
4.15.0-rc3 4.15.0-rc3
vanilla noirq-v1r1
User 3799.96 3748.34
System 672.10 626.15
Elapsed 91.91 79.49
lu.C sees a small gain, ft.C a large gain and ep.C and is.C see small
regressions but in terms of absolute time, the difference is small and
likely within run-to-run variance. System CPU usage is slightly reduced.
schbench from Facebook was also requested. This is a bit of a mixed bag but
it's important to note that this workload should not be heavily impacted
by wakeups from interrupt context.
4.15.0-rc3 4.15.0-rc3
vanilla noirq-v1r1
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-1 41.00 ( 0.00%) 41.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-1 42.00 ( 0.00%) 42.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-1 43.00 ( 0.00%) 44.00 ( -2.33%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-1 44.00 ( 0.00%) 46.00 ( -4.55%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-1 57.00 ( 0.00%) 58.00 ( -1.75%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-1 59.00 ( 0.00%) 59.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-1 67.00 ( 0.00%) 78.00 ( -16.42%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-2 40.00 ( 0.00%) 51.00 ( -27.50%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-2 45.00 ( 0.00%) 56.00 ( -24.44%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-2 53.00 ( 0.00%) 59.00 ( -11.32%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-2 57.00 ( 0.00%) 61.00 ( -7.02%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-2 67.00 ( 0.00%) 71.00 ( -5.97%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-2 69.00 ( 0.00%) 74.00 ( -7.25%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-2 83.00 ( 0.00%) 77.00 ( 7.23%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-4 51.00 ( 0.00%) 51.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-4 57.00 ( 0.00%) 56.00 ( 1.75%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-4 60.00 ( 0.00%) 59.00 ( 1.67%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-4 62.00 ( 0.00%) 62.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-4 73.00 ( 0.00%) 72.00 ( 1.37%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-4 76.00 ( 0.00%) 74.00 ( 2.63%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-4 85.00 ( 0.00%) 78.00 ( 8.24%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-8 54.00 ( 0.00%) 58.00 ( -7.41%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-8 59.00 ( 0.00%) 62.00 ( -5.08%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-8 65.00 ( 0.00%) 66.00 ( -1.54%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-8 67.00 ( 0.00%) 70.00 ( -4.48%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-8 78.00 ( 0.00%) 79.00 ( -1.28%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-8 81.00 ( 0.00%) 80.00 ( 1.23%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-8 116.00 ( 0.00%) 83.00 ( 28.45%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-16 65.00 ( 0.00%) 64.00 ( 1.54%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-16 77.00 ( 0.00%) 71.00 ( 7.79%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-16 83.00 ( 0.00%) 82.00 ( 1.20%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-16 87.00 ( 0.00%) 87.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-16 95.00 ( 0.00%) 96.00 ( -1.05%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-16 99.00 ( 0.00%) 103.00 ( -4.04%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-16 104.00 ( 0.00%) 122.00 ( -17.31%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-32 71.00 ( 0.00%) 73.00 ( -2.82%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-32 91.00 ( 0.00%) 92.00 ( -1.10%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-32 108.00 ( 0.00%) 107.00 ( 0.93%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-32 118.00 ( 0.00%) 115.00 ( 2.54%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-32 134.00 ( 0.00%) 129.00 ( 3.73%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-32 138.00 ( 0.00%) 133.00 ( 3.62%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-32 149.00 ( 0.00%) 146.00 ( 2.01%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-39 83.00 ( 0.00%) 81.00 ( 2.41%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-39 105.00 ( 0.00%) 102.00 ( 2.86%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-39 120.00 ( 0.00%) 119.00 ( 0.83%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-39 129.00 ( 0.00%) 128.00 ( 0.78%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-39 153.00 ( 0.00%) 149.00 ( 2.61%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-39 166.00 ( 0.00%) 156.00 ( 6.02%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-39 12304.00 ( 0.00%) 12848.00 ( -4.42%)
When heavily loaded (e.g. 99.50th-qrtle-39 indicates 39 threads), there
are small gains in many cases. Otherwise it depends on the quartile used
where it can be bad -- e.g. 75.00th-qrtle-2. However, even these results
are probably a co-incidence. For this workload, much depends on what node
the threads get placed on and their relative locality and not wakeups from
interrupt context. A larger component on how it behaves would be automatic
NUMA balancing where a fault incurred to measure locality would be a much
larger contributer to latency than the wakeup path.
This is the results from an almost identical machine that happened to run
the same test. They only differ in terms of storage which is irrelevant
for this test.
4.15.0-rc3 4.15.0-rc3
vanilla noirq-v1r1
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-1 41.00 ( 0.00%) 41.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-1 42.00 ( 0.00%) 42.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-1 44.00 ( 0.00%) 43.00 ( 2.27%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-1 53.00 ( 0.00%) 45.00 ( 15.09%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-1 59.00 ( 0.00%) 58.00 ( 1.69%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-1 60.00 ( 0.00%) 59.00 ( 1.67%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-1 86.00 ( 0.00%) 61.00 ( 29.07%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-2 52.00 ( 0.00%) 41.00 ( 21.15%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-2 57.00 ( 0.00%) 46.00 ( 19.30%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-2 60.00 ( 0.00%) 53.00 ( 11.67%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-2 62.00 ( 0.00%) 57.00 ( 8.06%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-2 73.00 ( 0.00%) 68.00 ( 6.85%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-2 74.00 ( 0.00%) 71.00 ( 4.05%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-2 90.00 ( 0.00%) 75.00 ( 16.67%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-4 57.00 ( 0.00%) 52.00 ( 8.77%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-4 60.00 ( 0.00%) 58.00 ( 3.33%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-4 62.00 ( 0.00%) 62.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-4 65.00 ( 0.00%) 65.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-4 76.00 ( 0.00%) 75.00 ( 1.32%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-4 77.00 ( 0.00%) 77.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-4 87.00 ( 0.00%) 81.00 ( 6.90%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-8 59.00 ( 0.00%) 57.00 ( 3.39%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-8 63.00 ( 0.00%) 62.00 ( 1.59%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-8 66.00 ( 0.00%) 67.00 ( -1.52%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-8 68.00 ( 0.00%) 70.00 ( -2.94%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-8 79.00 ( 0.00%) 80.00 ( -1.27%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-8 80.00 ( 0.00%) 84.00 ( -5.00%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-8 84.00 ( 0.00%) 90.00 ( -7.14%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-16 65.00 ( 0.00%) 65.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-16 77.00 ( 0.00%) 75.00 ( 2.60%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-16 84.00 ( 0.00%) 83.00 ( 1.19%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-16 88.00 ( 0.00%) 87.00 ( 1.14%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-16 97.00 ( 0.00%) 96.00 ( 1.03%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-16 100.00 ( 0.00%) 104.00 ( -4.00%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-16 110.00 ( 0.00%) 126.00 ( -14.55%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-32 70.00 ( 0.00%) 71.00 ( -1.43%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-32 92.00 ( 0.00%) 94.00 ( -2.17%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-32 110.00 ( 0.00%) 110.00 ( 0.00%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-32 121.00 ( 0.00%) 118.00 ( 2.48%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-32 135.00 ( 0.00%) 137.00 ( -1.48%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-32 140.00 ( 0.00%) 146.00 ( -4.29%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-32 150.00 ( 0.00%) 160.00 ( -6.67%)
Lat 50.00th-qrtle-39 80.00 ( 0.00%) 71.00 ( 11.25%)
Lat 75.00th-qrtle-39 102.00 ( 0.00%) 91.00 ( 10.78%)
Lat 90.00th-qrtle-39 118.00 ( 0.00%) 108.00 ( 8.47%)
Lat 95.00th-qrtle-39 128.00 ( 0.00%) 117.00 ( 8.59%)
Lat 99.00th-qrtle-39 149.00 ( 0.00%) 133.00 ( 10.74%)
Lat 99.50th-qrtle-39 160.00 ( 0.00%) 139.00 ( 13.12%)
Lat 99.90th-qrtle-39 13808.00 ( 0.00%) 4920.00 ( 64.37%)
Despite being nearly identical, it showed a variety of major gains so
I'm not convinced that heavy emphasis should be placed on this particular
workload in terms of evaluating this particular patch. Further evidence of
this is the fact that testing on a UMA machine showed small gains/losses
even though the patch should be a no-op on UMA.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171219085947.13136-2-mgorman@techsingularity.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>